I preferred:- the lower contrast of the first version you posted- not seeing the top of the window, first version- seeing more around the side and bottom of the window, last version- the slight surprise of noticing the second dog, first version

Much better with more window showing. It helps explain the dogs' story. Either three rows of rivets or none. A single row at the bottom is distracting but showing them on the sides too explains their presence at the bottom.

The bottom border is now too wide for me. I'd reduce the width of the aluminum siding by half, keeping the rivets.

I'd also lose the brown border at the top of the curtains unless you have the top of the window available in the original. I'd vignette the top of the curtains a stop.

Anything you can do to further increase the visibility of the dark dog will help.

Thanks for your response and from everyone else's as well.

I want to keep the second dog as vague and almost meancing. In his face I read resignation of yet one more time being disappointed but in such a manner as not to ever bark again.

I'll probably lose the top part of the window frame and will look at vignetting the curtains. I did do quite a bit of work on them to diminish their value against that of the dogs thoough perhaps more is needed.

I too strongly prefer the more relaxed crop. I also scrolled the image just enough to get rid of the sliver of window frame at the top. I like it without the distraction of the wood at the top--letting the lace curtains disappear out of the frame.

This is turning into a riveting read. It is really surprising how different folks see things differently assuming they aren't seeing them differently for the sake of it. I too missed the second dog because I assumed it was dirt on the window. I think Rob was right .... you see what you want to see. Then your mind starts to image it in a lot of different ways. The second one is better imo because there is more context. A thumbs up for the image. BTW Chris it looks as if you have a stalker or an admirer. Someone is waiting patiently for you to post an image to get his criticism in first.

I want to keep the second dog as vague and almost meancing. In his face I read resignation of yet one more time being disappointed but in such a manner as not to ever bark again.

I'll probably lose the top part of the window frame and will look at vignetting the curtains. I did do quite a bit of work on them to diminish their value against that of the dogs thoough perhaps more is needed.

The revised cropping yields an important piece of new information in the photo - the dogs are in a trailer. And that piece of information already makes the story more detailed and interesting. A whole new context was added (which has previously been removed). The added information doesn't in away detract from what was already there with the dogs. So for me, this is much more successful.

I am sure it has its theoretical name that escapes me at this moment, but isn't there a principle that says that if a simpler explanation fits, it is most likely the right one?

I suspect you're thinking of Occam's Razor, Slobodan. It's a principle that has been expressed in many ways: my favourite is "It is vain to do with more what can be done with less". I find it can be applied to almost everything I do.

I suspect you're thinking of Occam's Razor, Slobodan. It's a principle that has been expressed in many ways: my favourite is "It is vain to do with more what can be done with less". I find it can be applied to almost everything I do.